Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the National Football league and the NCAA filed the lawsuit in federal court in Trenton.

The leagues say New Jersey’s proposal to allow sports betting is “in clear and flagrant violation” of a 1992 federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which restricts betting on collegiate and professional games to four states: Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon. New Jersey was given a chance to become the fifth state, but declined to act during a yearlong window from 1993 to 1994.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

IANAL, but my initial question is what standing the sports leagues have to sue here.

They sued Delaware in 2009 for the same thing, and argued that legalizing sports gaming hurts them because it clouds their image of putting forth a clean game with an honest effort.

I believe New Jersey, Delaware, Iowa, and Maryland (Florida and Pennsylvania have discussed it but are waiting to see what happens) are all making a push for legal sports gaming. If those states are successful, many other states will want to follow suit.

I concur with #2. At the risk of this turning into yet another endless multi-thousand post Red Diaper Baby thread, I think Christie's question here is entirely valid.

I'm not sure why Nevada should be legally entitled to have a quasi-monopoly on sports betting. Especially as more and more different forms of gambling are slowly becoming legal and spreading around the country into more and more places.

I'm not sure why Nevada should be legally entitled to have a quasi-monopoly on sports betting. Especially as more and more different forms of gambling are slowly becoming legal and spreading around the country into more and more places.

What, legally, prevents the feds from doing this? I agree its unfair and a stupid policy, but legally I'm not seeing what prevents it. To be fair, I haven't given it a ton of thought so I'm sure I'm missing something.

Okay, the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Gambling happens across state lines. So what would stop the feds from letting some states engage in this and others not?

How does gambling happen across state lines? Passing a law declaring gambling legal in Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon and illegal everywhere else seems like the exact opposite of invoking the commerce clause.

In the vast majority of MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL games, one of the teams travels across state lines in order to play the game. That's enough to make the commerce clause applicable, I'd think.

I dont think "gambling" in state A includes the act of a team traveling from state B to State C to play the game, any more than the Intergalactic Federation would have jurisdiction over my betting my next door neighbor on what happens with the Mars Rover. Can a NJ resident legally bet on Portland@Phoenix under the full faith and credit clause?

The idea of commerce being purely local doesn't carry any weight these days - from a constitutional POV. Businesses use phone lines which cross state lines, the US Postal Service, customers travel from other states and use interstate highways to get there, etc. The SC rulings limiting this power have done so on the basis that certain laws don't actually deal with commerce (firearms being taken to school and the Violence Against Women Act for example).

I have no idea if some other constitutional precept is being violated here but if a court were to hold the commerce clause does not permit such regulation it would be a landmark holding.

#2: Because states should not subsidize or any way incentivize socially-destructive behaviors for the benefit of capturing new sources of tax revenue. It's called public service. Meaning government serves the people, not the people serving government through exploitation of their vices.

#16, that strikes me as a good reason for there not to be state run lotteries, but not such a convincing argument against legalized gambling. Government officials might want sports betting legalized because of the revenue it would provide, but the reason I and so many others feel it should be legal is because we don't think it's the government's job to protect people from themselves.

Is there a marked difference in gambling problems between North America and Europe?

I suppose you could ask the same thing about alcohol. Having spent a month back in Canada in August it was depressing how inconvenient it was to get booze at 2am.

I've found that people are more or less the same wherever you go. People everywhere love boozing and gambling. The ease with which you can do these things just depends on the laws. I split my time between New York and Las Vegas. The suburbs of Vegas are just like the suburbs of New York, except when you enter a CVS in Vegas you can play slots and buy hard liquor. I'd think drug stores in New York would be very happy to sell liquor and install slot machines if the law allowed it.

I dont think "gambling" in state A includes the act of a team traveling from state B to State C to play the game, any more than the Intergalactic Federation would have jurisdiction over my betting my next door neighbor on what happens with the Mars Rover. Can a NJ resident legally bet on Portland@Phoenix under the full faith and credit clause?

The fact that five sports leagues are suing under the premise that it hurts their interstate commerce suggests to me that gambling affects interstate commerce.

17: That strikes me as a poor argument. Of course governments aim to protect one (and their family and others impacted by their behaviors or lack of alternative behaviors) from themselves. Think suicide, think opportunities denied to those with mental health problems, think penalties on vendors serving the intoxicated, think the informed consent laws that require rationality. Western law does not endorse the position of the most clever and devious to exploit others.

The whole 'live and let live' argument does not make sense when you consider there is an inherent statement of support from the government when they change the laws to allow for it. Perhaps if a court imposed an order citing the existing law was illegal, but the actions of the legislature reflect value judgments. To say nothing of states further legitimizing it by regulating it and taxing it. And to say nothing of states entering partnerships or subsidizing to promote the underlying activity for the benefit of tax revenue.

Nats, since there's already a giant politics thread, I'll just say that we pretty clearly disagree on what the role of government should be. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of much beyond that.

Is there no equal protection/due process argument here via the 5th amendment? Or is enumerated powers/commerce clause the 600 lb. gorilla in this argument?

I can see the constitutional argument, but the other states have got senators/representatives too. It's not like the other states don't have the legislative power to demand an even playing field, one way or the other.

The NCAA sends people to Las Vegas to watch the boards and see if any lines move in a mysterious way.

I always wanted to sue MLB and the MLBPA for allowing casinos to use my work as a player without proper compensation. And if that didn't work, try to acquire the use of MLB team names for my own commercial use. If MLB lets Vegas use team names and post odds for profit, what prevents me from trying to use team names for profit, as MLB is not actively protecting their names despite knowledge of their economic usage by others?

I always wanted to sue MLB and the MLBPA for allowing casinos to use my work as a player without proper compensation.

A while back, there were cases where players challenged fantasy baseball games as violating their right of publicity. What I got out of the legal back-and-forth here on the issue was that it would in fact be problematic for a casino to offer a bet that Bob Tufts would win 20 games¹. But, the casinos claim that they don't offer such bets, and I don't think you could argue that you can exercise the rights of the Kansas City Royals because you represent 4% of their major league roster. Although, that would be funny.

Doing minor research, standing for the sports organizations to sue is granted by The Bradley Act:

A civil action to enjoin a violation of section 3702 may be commenced in an appropriate district court of the United States by the Attorney General of the United States, or by a professional sports organization or amateur sports organization whose competitive game is alleged to be the basis of such violation.

A different question is how can the state be sued at all here? The 11th amendment precludes states from being sued without their consent, doesn't it? Presumably New Jersey isn't consenting.

Correct.
The legal argument is that Congress banned ALL sports betting in 1992, in all states
(Pause)

Oh, Nevada already had full sports betting, so Congress couldn't take it away. The other 3 (Montana, Oregon, Delaware) only had limited sports betting, and they can have that as well.

The Delaware case was them saying they wanted Vegas-style betting, since they had NFL betting in 1992 already. But the court ruled that they only had those parlay-style bets (the 'tickets' where you'd bet 4 games at 10 to 1 odds, basically), so that's all they can offer at their casinos now. Which they do, but they don't get a ton of business because they can't do straight bets.

Incidentally, the law was sponsored by ex-Knick/US Sen (from NJ) Bill Bradley, who said he didn't care to be treated like a "poker chip" by bettors.

Which is rather odd when you consider that in most cases the legal argument usually made is that federal law supersedes state law.

Say that some states have a law requiring certain people to pay a poll tax. When congress and the president later on pass a law banning all poll taxes, the courts don't usually say that certain states are "grandfathered" in and get an exception.

So I'm still not sure exactly what is so special about sports betting that it can have this sort of special legal niche carved out.

Which is rather odd when you consider that in most cases the legal argument usually made is that federal law supersedes state law.

The Constitution is explicit on this - where there's joint jurisdiction, federal law takes precedence. The issue is probably that Congress chose to make exemptions for states that already had sports betting, not that Congress had to do that or the courts forced them to do it. If they hadn't made exceptions, they might well have faced filibusters. The NV sports books are a big business in Nevada, and the Orregon football betting is run by the state.

Regarding the discussion of whether the state should protect people from their worst demons: one can argue that legal, regulated gambling leads to harm-reduction relative to gambling with illegal bookies. The bookies can probably be put out of business by legal gambling, and then the opportunity to gamble on credit with money you don't have will go away. Bookies now assume you can pay up and then go after you if you don't. If all the people who legitimately can pay up choose legal gambling, there will be basically nowhere to bet for the people who can't pay up.

The issue is probably that Congress chose to make exemptions for states that already had sports betting, not that Congress had to do that or the courts forced them to do it. If they hadn't made exceptions, they might well have faced filibusters. The NV sports books are a big business in Nevada, and the Oregon football betting is run by the state.

Well, if what you say is true then what Howie Menckel said in post #36 isn't really true, and we're right back to Christie's question as to what the basis is for Congress to do something like that.

If NJ were to win the lawsuit, would it be allowed to do Vegas-style betting? I am very bad at sports betting but throwing $20 on a game makes things much more fun. I basically got into watching soccer by throwing $20 on Mexico to beat Argentina in the 2006 World Cup.

If MLB lets Vegas use team names and post odds for profit, what prevents me from trying to use team names for profit, as MLB is not actively protecting their names despite knowledge of their economic usage by others?

Anyone who plays Strat-O-Matic knows that you don't get the Boston Red Sox, you get "Boston." (It'd be funny to check and see whether the casinos actually abide by this.)

In Sweden the government runs gambling*, ostensibly to promote social responsibility. That is pretty transparent though, they market the hell out of the games, they even have "Easy to win" as a slogan for a Keno game, complete with TV ads featuring slackers making a living playing a game that returns 40% or so to the punters. I really, really hate those ads**, it's a nice income source for the state though.

All but casual sports gamblers also use foreign sites though, I certainly do. Single games have lousy odds at the monopoly, they have done a clever thing though, they give reasonable odds on a win for either side and a totally horrendous one for the draw. That way they can compete with sites that have better returns to the punters, as most don't want to bet the draw anyway.

*) Except the horses, that is run by a company owned by the tracks, though they pay gambling taxes.
**) Is that's why the government shows little interest in enhancing our crappy math eduction?

I was amazed upon moving to England at how many sports betting parlours there are everywhere.

Gambling was heavily deregulated in the UK in 2005, and since then there has been a huge extension both to the number of betting shops, and their opening hours. There was never any shortage of betting shops, but from observation I'd guess that the number has tripled since then. Before then, opening hours were limited - Sunday opening was a recent innovation, and the shops would only open in the evening when there was racing happening, so 4 or 5 nights a week in the summer. Now they're pretty much open 9am-10pm seven days a week, and if there's no racing happening in the UK then they'll show any racing they can find anywhere in the world, or they show virtual racing.

And casinos appear to be just like any other shop in town.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In truth, the distinction between betting shops and casinos has shrunk, as the betting shops have installed Fixed odds betting terminals. In theory these could be any kind of game, but in effect are all roulette machines. Although less heavily regulated than before 2005, casinos are still more heavily regulated than betting shops, so I'm not entirely sure why the betting shops are allowed these - they effectively turn the betting shop into a low rent casino.

Is there a marked difference in gambling problems between North America and Europe?

There are claims that the 2005 changes have led to an increase in the number of problem gamblers, but a cursory google search suggests that the most extreme figures produced are only at the edges of statistical significance. What I can say is that in my opinion, betting shops are far less pleasant places than they used to be - 15-20 years ago when I used to work in them they were largely social places where regulars would come and spend the day betting in relatively small amounts on the day's racing, then go home. I wouldn't dream of working in one now, due to the ridiculous opening hours and the change in the clientele - most of the people who'd spend the day betting on the horses have migrated to online betting, and the roulette machines draw a different kind of client entirely, and there are reports of staff being threatened. In short, I was in favour of the changes before they were introduced, but in retrospect I'm, less sure.

Re this New Jersey thing, I've no idea of the relevant constitutional law, but for a federal government to be able to give a subset of states a monopoly over any field of commercial enterprise instinctively seems wrong.

The Delaware case was them saying they wanted Vegas-style betting, since they had NFL betting in 1992 already. But the court ruled that they only had those parlay-style bets (the 'tickets' where you'd bet 4 games at 10 to 1 odds, basically), so that's all they can offer at their casinos now. Which they do, but they don't get a ton of business because they can't do straight bets.

Couldn't you synthesize a straight bet with a composition of these parlay bets? If you want to bet on say LAA over TEX, you bet a set of parlays with that and also with every possible combination of three other games, like LAD/SFG and also SFG/LAD, and so on.

Is there a marked difference in gambling problems between North America and Europe?

Maybe not, but there is a marked difference in which one has legal structures that descend from Puritans legislating others' morals.

"The issue is probably that Congress chose to make exemptions for states that already had sports betting, not that Congress had to do that or the courts forced them to do it."

yes, I meant to type "didn't" instead of "couldn't" in Post 36.

they chose not to take away what few states had something, and they gave NJ a unique 1-yr window to legalize sports betting (NJ had Atlantic City casinos by then). but the referendum never made it onto the ballot in 1993 (Republicans had tight race with Whitman vs Florio, and felt putting sports betting on ballot would hurt their gubernatorial chances), so the window closed permanently (so far).

Is discriminating among the states in this fashion permitted by the 5th amendment? 14th amendment equal protection only applies to states, but the 5th amendment due process has been interpreted as requiring equal protection by the federal government. Given what Christie has said, this could be the nature of their core legal argument.

There's no question Congress has the right to declare sports betting illegal in all 50 states. The question is whether it is allowed to declare it illegal in some fraction of states.

We have plenty of lawyers around here. Does anyone have a definitive answer to that question?

I shouldn't say there's no question Congress could make sports betting illegal in all 50 states given the 10th amendment, but the courts have, as a practical matter, interpreted the commerce clause so broadly that they've allowed the federal government to pass nearly any law it wants under the guise of interstate commerce.